Topic: It's Time for the U.S. to End once and for all the Middle East Issue. (Read 773 times)
August 10, 2016, 06:04:32 PM
We'll leave that shit hole as soon as the oil is gone.
August 09, 2016, 01:00:37 PM
Answer is very simple: No!
All US governments since 1948 tried to do it and failed.
It's obvious that this issue is to complicate and can't be solved without cooperation from Jews and Palestinians.
Right now, there is no real desire in Jews or Palestinian community to solve this issue or even to start peace talks.
USA can be just mediator here but can't solve this complex problem alone.
It's not possible to force anybody to live in peace and find solution, if no mutual desire.
All US governments since 1948 tried to do it and failed.
It's obvious that this issue is to complicate and can't be solved without cooperation from Jews and Palestinians.
Right now, there is no real desire in Jews or Palestinian community to solve this issue or even to start peace talks.
USA can be just mediator here but can't solve this complex problem alone.
It's not possible to force anybody to live in peace and find solution, if no mutual desire.
August 09, 2016, 12:28:50 PM
USA needs to stop supporting shitty radical muslims saying they are democrats.
Middle east needs stabilized governments.
Middle east needs stabilized governments.
August 09, 2016, 11:01:57 AM
We all know why the U.S. is involved in the Middle East...oil.
It is that simple.
It is time for us to simply admit this and keep our actions constrained to only the actions that benefit the U.S.
Nation building in countries that are barely out of the Stone Age (1) is a waste of money and time.
If Military force is to be used...let it be overwhelming, decisive and quick. (2)
It is that simple.
It is time for us to simply admit this and keep our actions constrained to only the actions that benefit the U.S.
Nation building in countries that are barely out of the Stone Age (1) is a waste of money and time.
If Military force is to be used...let it be overwhelming, decisive and quick. (2)
1) Lybia, Syria were very developed countries, until the US put them into the stone age.
2) It's not in the interest of the US to quickly end the conflicts that they started - they need them smouldering, weakening the victim, and then easily taking the spoils - oil, on which point you are completely correct.
The thing that you are missing in this is, nations have always been trying to overcome other nations, all the time. If Syria and Libya hadn't allowed themselves to become the backward Islamic nations that they became long ago, but rather offered freedom to the people to advance economically, the US would have never been able to do what they did to them. So it is their own fault by becoming Islamic.
August 09, 2016, 10:58:01 AM
We all know why the U.S. is involved in the Middle East...oil.
It is that simple.
It is time for us to simply admit this and keep our actions constrained to only the actions that benefit the U.S.
Nation building in countries that are barely out of the Stone Age (1) is a waste of money and time.
If Military force is to be used...let it be overwhelming, decisive and quick. (2)
It is that simple.
It is time for us to simply admit this and keep our actions constrained to only the actions that benefit the U.S.
Nation building in countries that are barely out of the Stone Age (1) is a waste of money and time.
If Military force is to be used...let it be overwhelming, decisive and quick. (2)
1) Lybia, Syria were very developed countries, until the US put them into the stone age.
2) It's not in the interest of the US to quickly end the conflicts that they started - they need them smouldering, weakening the victim, and then easily taking the spoils - oil, on which point you are completely correct.
August 09, 2016, 10:27:06 AM
OP, it isn't as simple as that. There are things that are happening behind the scenes that they're not telling us. For all we know, they all want the region to be in a perpetual war. Even the nations themselves who declare they want peace. Remember that war is also a source of opportunities for profiteers.
The US doesn't want that and never has wanted that.Think about it. Instability in the Middle East jacks up oil prices, because the futures market is hedged against the expectation of future shortages.
Those who benefit from that are those in the Middle East with oil. For example, the Saudis...
They seem curiously to sit to the side of conflicts which never touch them, exerting subtle influences. Leaving all that aside, monetarily, they certainly benefit from higher oil prices.
Meanwhile, the US Fracking industry has directly caused a dramatic drop in oil prices, which nobody seems to be able to control.
Right! The US is either just some paperwork that shows governmental structure, or it is the mass minds of all its citizens.
If it is the former, it can't do anything, and if it is the latter, it thinks all kinds of things. But when you see how the sides in a presidential race are often almost balanced right at 50/50, who in the world can tell what the US really wants?
August 09, 2016, 08:54:54 AM
All of US strategy on middle east not only failed but they made themselves the prime target for extremist hypocrites.
But US are so involved in middle east that withdrawing will not only affect US, but also there would be an extreme genocide of minorities in the place.
For better results, Leaders should negotiate, eliminate the sunni extremist like ISIS and create a special zones for every minority like kurds to live on peacefully.
Leaders should respect democracy.
But US are so involved in middle east that withdrawing will not only affect US, but also there would be an extreme genocide of minorities in the place.
For better results, Leaders should negotiate, eliminate the sunni extremist like ISIS and create a special zones for every minority like kurds to live on peacefully.
Leaders should respect democracy.
August 09, 2016, 08:26:23 AM
Why should Americans who put an end to all the problems that occurred in the middle east, while the states there seemed to turn a blind eye to the presence of terrorists.
The United States is the no.1 reason for the current unrest in the Middle East. They have supplied weapons to the warring parties (especially the Sunni Arab groupings) and have played their part in worsening the Sunni-Shiite rift. Also, the American corporations are looting the national wealth of many middle-eastern nations.
May I add about the thousands of ancient artifacts stolen from Iraq/Syria/Libya and soled in the west
August 09, 2016, 05:36:22 AM
Why should Americans who put an end to all the problems that occurred in the middle east, while the states there seemed to turn a blind eye to the presence of terrorists.
The United States is the no.1 reason for the current unrest in the Middle East. They have supplied weapons to the warring parties (especially the Sunni Arab groupings) and have played their part in worsening the Sunni-Shiite rift. Also, the American corporations are looting the national wealth of many middle-eastern nations.
August 09, 2016, 05:08:00 AM
Why should Americans who put an end to all the problems that occurred in the middle east, while the states there seemed to turn a blind eye to the presence of terrorists.
August 09, 2016, 01:50:04 AM
OP, it isn't as simple as that. There are things that are happening behind the scenes that they're not telling us. For all we know, they all want the region to be in a perpetual war. Even the nations themselves who declare they want peace. Remember that war is also a source of opportunities for profiteers.
The US doesn't want that and never has wanted that.Think about it. Instability in the Middle East jacks up oil prices, because the futures market is hedged against the expectation of future shortages.
Those who benefit from that are those in the Middle East with oil. For example, the Saudis...
They seem curiously to sit to the side of conflicts which never touch them, exerting subtle influences. Leaving all that aside, monetarily, they certainly benefit from higher oil prices.
Meanwhile, the US Fracking industry has directly caused a dramatic drop in oil prices, which nobody seems to be able to control.
But do not forget, the US is not wholly dependent on oil from the Middle East. The US has the largest oil reserves in the world and it can last them more than 100 years. And even a longer time than that if there comes a time to ration it. In fact it is still growing. They will not stop hoarding oil because it is one raw product that the whole world will need when it runs out. There's a theory that the source of fossil fuels will not last. The US knows this.
Also one thing about a perpetual war in the Middle East that the US wants is it makes them gain leverage over the region. They have the weapons and are willing to supply it only to those who ally with them. It's also a business.
I kinda agree with this. That is why the US trying to be friendly over the King of Saudi. They have large sum of Oil deposit.
Once oil become rare, it will be more expensive than now. Unless someone found something green renewable energy replacing oil.
August 08, 2016, 10:02:04 PM
OP, it isn't as simple as that. There are things that are happening behind the scenes that they're not telling us. For all we know, they all want the region to be in a perpetual war. Even the nations themselves who declare they want peace. Remember that war is also a source of opportunities for profiteers.
The US doesn't want that and never has wanted that.Think about it. Instability in the Middle East jacks up oil prices, because the futures market is hedged against the expectation of future shortages.
Those who benefit from that are those in the Middle East with oil. For example, the Saudis...
They seem curiously to sit to the side of conflicts which never touch them, exerting subtle influences. Leaving all that aside, monetarily, they certainly benefit from higher oil prices.
Meanwhile, the US Fracking industry has directly caused a dramatic drop in oil prices, which nobody seems to be able to control.
But do not forget, the US is not wholly dependent on oil from the Middle East. The US has the largest oil reserves in the world and it can last them more than 100 years. And even a longer time than that if there comes a time to ration it. In fact it is still growing. They will not stop hoarding oil because it is one raw product that the whole world will need when it runs out. There's a theory that the source of fossil fuels will not last. The US knows this.
Also one thing about a perpetual war in the Middle East that the US wants is it makes them gain leverage over the region. They have the weapons and are willing to supply it only to those who ally with them. It's also a business.
August 08, 2016, 09:35:43 PM
OP, it isn't as simple as that. There are things that are happening behind the scenes that they're not telling us. For all we know, they all want the region to be in a perpetual war. Even the nations themselves who declare they want peace. Remember that war is also a source of opportunities for profiteers.
The US doesn't want that and never has wanted that.Think about it. Instability in the Middle East jacks up oil prices, because the futures market is hedged against the expectation of future shortages.
Those who benefit from that are those in the Middle East with oil. For example, the Saudis...
They seem curiously to sit to the side of conflicts which never touch them, exerting subtle influences. Leaving all that aside, monetarily, they certainly benefit from higher oil prices.
Meanwhile, the US Fracking industry has directly caused a dramatic drop in oil prices, which nobody seems to be able to control.
August 08, 2016, 08:34:39 PM
This might be out of topic,
But superpowers based countries tends trying to dominate others.
Whether they be peace keeper or trouble maker actually?
But superpowers based countries tends trying to dominate others.
Whether they be peace keeper or trouble maker actually?
August 08, 2016, 08:18:52 PM
We all know why the U.S. is involved in the Middle East...oil.
Is it? Normally a nation starts a war if it's good business but was Vietnam good business?Maybe it's more complicated.
August 08, 2016, 08:40:19 AM
OP, it isn't as simple as that. There are things that are happening behind the scenes that they're not telling us. For all we know, they all want the region to be in a perpetual war. Even the nations themselves who declare they want peace. Remember that war is also a source of opportunities for profiteers.
August 08, 2016, 08:29:10 AM
The U.S. doesn't have any way to end the violence in the Middle East.
How Dangerous, Really?
Trump Now Denies Asking Why US Does Not Use Nuclear Weapons
Read more at http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/do-they-exist-trump-now-denies-asking-why-us-does-not-use-nuclear-weapons/.
How Dangerous, Really?
Trump Now Denies Asking Why US Does Not Use Nuclear Weapons
Trump reportedly asked adviser why US can't use nuclear weapons … MSNBC host Joe Scarborough told a stunned panel Wednesday morning that when Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump met with an unnamed national security expert earlier this year, he repeatedly asked why the U.S. couldn't use its nuclear weapons stockpile. -AOL
Trump has asked a good question about nuclear weapons. The US has spent trillions on nukes but only used them twice on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Too bad he now denies asking.
Apparently nuclear weapons may not be as powerful as they are made out to be by the Pentagon. At least not in the past.
Here is direct testimony of some of the exaggerations that took place from Crawford Sams – (of the 'Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission'):
The object of this instruction, called Letter of Instruction, was "You will play up the devastating effect of the atomic bomb." All right? So I was the one who set the deadline this time. Anybody who had been in Hiroshima and died within six months, whether they got run over by a bicycle or whatnot, would be credited to the atomic bomb. …
When the bomb went off, about 2 thousand people out of 250 thousand got killed [in Hiroshima] – by blast, by thermal radiation, or by intense x-ray, gamma radiation. … You see, it wasn't "Bing" like the publicity here [said]: a bomb went off and a city disappeared. No such thing happened. That was the propaganda for deterrent …
You don't hear much about the effects of Nagasaki because actually it was pretty ineffective. That was a narrow corridor from the hospital … down to the port, and the effects were very limited as far as the fire spread and all that stuff. So you don't hear much about Nagasaki.
Our previous article HERE received some interesting feedbacks.
From "Rothbard" …
You have reminded me of something that happened 15 years ago. I had a co-worker who was previously some sort of NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical) EMT (emergency medical tech) for the U.S. military in Korea. We were talking one time and he said that nuclear war would be a lot more survivable that people thought. He would not say anything further, but only that I should look it up.
From "wrusssr" …
After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki "bombings" were sold to the public, the Korean war started. A UN "conflict" were were told. With MacArthur in charge. And there was a point in that "conflict" I've never understood.
It was when China massed its Army along the Yalu River to invade South Korea. If ever there was a time and place to use nuclear weapons against and opposing force in the field, that was it. War over…
Wrusssr is asking the same sort of question that Trump is asking. Why haven't nukes been used in places they could be?
Trump has asked a good question about nuclear weapons. The US has spent trillions on nukes but only used them twice on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Too bad he now denies asking.
Apparently nuclear weapons may not be as powerful as they are made out to be by the Pentagon. At least not in the past.
Here is direct testimony of some of the exaggerations that took place from Crawford Sams – (of the 'Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission'):
The object of this instruction, called Letter of Instruction, was "You will play up the devastating effect of the atomic bomb." All right? So I was the one who set the deadline this time. Anybody who had been in Hiroshima and died within six months, whether they got run over by a bicycle or whatnot, would be credited to the atomic bomb. …
When the bomb went off, about 2 thousand people out of 250 thousand got killed [in Hiroshima] – by blast, by thermal radiation, or by intense x-ray, gamma radiation. … You see, it wasn't "Bing" like the publicity here [said]: a bomb went off and a city disappeared. No such thing happened. That was the propaganda for deterrent …
You don't hear much about the effects of Nagasaki because actually it was pretty ineffective. That was a narrow corridor from the hospital … down to the port, and the effects were very limited as far as the fire spread and all that stuff. So you don't hear much about Nagasaki.
Our previous article HERE received some interesting feedbacks.
From "Rothbard" …
You have reminded me of something that happened 15 years ago. I had a co-worker who was previously some sort of NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical) EMT (emergency medical tech) for the U.S. military in Korea. We were talking one time and he said that nuclear war would be a lot more survivable that people thought. He would not say anything further, but only that I should look it up.
From "wrusssr" …
After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki "bombings" were sold to the public, the Korean war started. A UN "conflict" were were told. With MacArthur in charge. And there was a point in that "conflict" I've never understood.
It was when China massed its Army along the Yalu River to invade South Korea. If ever there was a time and place to use nuclear weapons against and opposing force in the field, that was it. War over…
Wrusssr is asking the same sort of question that Trump is asking. Why haven't nukes been used in places they could be?
Read more at http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/do-they-exist-trump-now-denies-asking-why-us-does-not-use-nuclear-weapons/.
August 08, 2016, 03:20:24 AM
To be honest I do not know that U.S. is the reason why there is a war on Middle East. Maybe you are right because they want to control the oil which can be found entirely in the Middle East. If that is the case I do not think that they will end just like that because they still haven't get what they want.
And if the country in the middle east really want to end the war and have peace, I think the U.S has no obligation with it. They are the one who must do it.
And if the country in the middle east really want to end the war and have peace, I think the U.S has no obligation with it. They are the one who must do it.
August 08, 2016, 02:11:09 AM
We all know why the U.S. is involved in the Middle East...oil.
It is that simple.
It is time for us to simply admit this and keep our actions constrained to only the actions that benefit the U.S.
Nation building in countries that are barely out of the Stone Age is a waste of money and time.
If Military force is to be used...let it be overwhelming, decisive and quick.
It is that simple.
It is time for us to simply admit this and keep our actions constrained to only the actions that benefit the U.S.
Nation building in countries that are barely out of the Stone Age is a waste of money and time.
If Military force is to be used...let it be overwhelming, decisive and quick.
Jump to: